Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Rough Draft (Late Sorry)

Interactivity is an important aspect to understand. Interactivity has it roles in a lot of our daily activities. Probably the most apparent of these activities is our participation with the internet. There is a large range of what is considered to be interactive, especially on the internet, and this mentioned range will be the majority of my discussion. Before we begin with the variance of interactivity and what it means, It is imperative to accept that interactivity if highly sought after by internet page creators and something that the user sees has beneficial. It is my job to prove to you that this is true. There is a definite purpose and reason why interactivity is so sought after by the phenomenon that is the internet.

In years past, several studies have been conducted to try and grasp what the term “online interactivity” really means. Media researchers have viewed online interactivity primarily as an attribute of technological functions of the medium such as hyper linking, activating media downloads, filling in feedback forms, and playing online games (Warnick, 1). However, this does not include any user to user interaction that most people would agree would also be considered interactivity. The activities listed above never actually require a person to interact with another person.

With this, in more recent years researchers have based more of their theories on interactivity to be paralleled with user to user interaction. Examples of this include chat rooms, emails, and instant messages. Both arguments and research supply sufficient evidence that they both represent what I feel online interactivity actually means. In the end, online interactivity is an artifact of what users experience and perceive.

(At this point, I’d like to include some more research about what recent research has shown on being more accepted as being interactive.)

Now that we have discussed and accepted that interactivity is a sought after aspect for internet users. It is time to take it one step farther. What makes one interactive thing more interactive than the other? Are people attracted to certain things on a web page more so than something else on the same web page?

(More research on what makes certain aspects of the web pages more interactive than the other)

So we have discussed what makes something interactive, and then also what makes interactive things more interactive than each other. So now let’s move past the internet. Choose your own adventure narratives have been debated upon whether or not they are actually considered to be interactive. Based on prior conclusions on what interactivity actually means, let us discuss some of the points that choose your own adventure narratives would hit upon. It does use a medium (actual text choices) to portray an interactive journey through a book and there a several different journeys you can end up taking. However it does not allow for any user to user interaction like more recent research has concluded to be interactive. Ultimately, we decided that interactivity is basically what the user experiences and perceives. A choose your own adventure narrative would definitely fit into that aspect.

It is a very rough draft and has a lot of loose ends that need to be tied up. I need to do a lot more research with surveys and other consensus options dealing with interactivity on web pages.

Sorry for the delay with the draft, I am out of town for thanksgiving and had a mix up with due dates and such. Sorry for the inconvenience.


1 comment:

Adam Johns said...

The introduction is almost completely incoherent - I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to do in the very beginning.

In the following paragraphs, you're trying to say something about what interactivity *is*, as well as why it's valuable or desirable, at least lightly touching on your research in the process.

Have a look at this: "Now that we have discussed and accepted that interactivity is a sought after aspect for internet users. It is time to take it one step farther. What makes one interactive thing more interactive than the other?" Look at the first sentence. I do think it's true that you tried to define interactivity, as both something inherent in the medium and as something which has to do with user-user interaction. However, you rush this discussion, and I certainly didn't see anything explaining why interactivity is "a sought after aspect for internet users." I would think that explaining the desirability of interactivity might well be the main point of the paper; it certainly isn't something that you just *assume* before moving on.

I'm not sure why you leave the internet to discuss CYOAs. It just didn't follow to me.

First, you need to focus on your main argument - what are you trying to demonstrate here? I see a vague area of inquiry - nothing resembling a specific thesis *about* that area.